October 14, 2012 "Information
Clearing House"
- The Obama administration has now publicly announced that
it deployed U.S. troops near the Syrian border in neighboring
Jordan without ever seeking congressional permission, supposedly
in an effort to help the Jordanian government deal with refugees
from Syria while ensuring that the civil war does not spill over
into the broader region. Concerns about chemical and biological
weapons falling into the “wrong hands” were also cited to
justify the latest deployment, but some lawmakers are upset,
warning that the U.S. is now even closer to overt military
intervention in Syria.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at a NATO
conference in Brussels, said the Obama administration had been
cooperating closely with the government of Jordan's King
Abdullah II. Apparently both sides are concerned that Syria’s
chemical weapons stockpiles could end up in the hands of al-
Qaeda-linked Islamic extremists currently battling the secular
Bashar al-Assad regime with support from the Western
establishment and assorted Sunni dictatorships.

"We continue to be concerned about security at those sites,"
Panetta
said after the NATO meeting of defense chiefs. "We want to
ensure that security is maintained and we want to be very sure
that those [weapons] do not fall into the wrong hands." The
embattled Syrian dictatorship has reportedly tried to secure its
stockpiles, but fears about them remain, especially in
neighboring Turkey. "They are obviously concerned about the
(weapons storage) sites as well," Panetta said about the Turkish
government. "So we've worked with them to do what we can to
monitor the situation."

Also part of the U.S. mission, according to officials from both
countries, is supporting the Jordanian government. "We have a
group of our forces there, working to help them build a
headquarters and to ensure that we make the relationship between
the United States and Jordan a strong one so we can deal with
all of the possible consequences," Panetta explained after the
summit. "We've also been working with them to try to develop
their own military and operational capabilities in the event of
any contingency there."

Numerous
reports have suggested small teams of U.S. and Western
government forces may already be operating in Syria. It remains
unclear exactly how large the now acknowledged U.S. government
presence along the Syria-Jordan border may be, but
news reports citing officials claimed there were some 150
American Special Operations troops as well as so-called
“trainers.” Also uncertain is where the Obama administration
believes it found the lawful or constitutional authority to
deploy U.S. troops to Jordan or Syria.

Some lawmakers, though, are outraged that the administration
apparently thinks it can simply deploy American forces wherever
it pleases without even obtaining permission from Congress. Rep.
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who blasted the decision, also warned
that the lawless deployment means the U.S. government is now
"immeasurably" closer to being directly and overtly involved in
the long-running Syrian war.

"I can see in a moment how it happens: we're a few dozen miles
from the Syrian border and all of a sudden we are within the
reach of physical danger. All it takes is a single incident,"
Kucinich
toldU.S. News, adding that talk of weapons of mass
destruction was an argument for trying to reduce the violence
rather than intensify it. "Putting U.S. troops on that border
draws the U.S. much closer to war in Syria, which is a nightmare
already and can be more of a nightmare for our country."

According to Kucinich, who along with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
has developed a reputation as one of the fiercest congressional
critics of the bi-partisan war-mongering establishment, putting
American troops on the border of a conflict area dramatically
increases the potential for U.S. involvement. "There's a trail
of causality here," he explained.

Despite the recent public announcements, however, American
forces have been there for months. In fact, the Obama
administration’s military scheming in Jordan related to the
Syrian conflict has been underway since at least May. According
to news reports, the U.S. government organized a massive
“training exercise” with more than 10,000 troops from almost 20
countries in Jordan. American forces remained there after the
exercise was finished.

“We have been working closely with our Jordanian partners on a
variety of issues related to Syria for some time now,” Pentagon
press secretary George Little was
quoted as admitting by the New York Times, citing
concerns about chemical and biological weapons. “As we’ve said
before, we have been planning for various contingencies, both
unilaterally and with our regional partners.”

Pointing to
previously released “regime change” strategies for Syria
developed by the U.S.-based Brookings Institution, analysts
said the latest developments are actually part of a broader
plan. Essentially, the positioning of American troops in Jordan
along Syria’s southern border while Turkish troops and U.S.
“intelligence” agencies focus on the northern border is meant to
divert the Syrian military’s attention away from its opposition,
allowing Western-backed Islamic extremists and rebel forces run
wild within the nation.

Other analysts
said that the public announcement of U.S. troops in Jordan
could be interpreted by the Islamist government in Turkey, which
is a member of NATO, as a sign that it should step up its role
in supporting rebel groups. Turkish forces have already engaged
in multiple cross-border skirmishes with Syrian troops, and
observers worry the situation could spiral out of control
quickly. Some experts say all-out war could even break out.

The Jordanian government, meanwhile, downplayed the presence of
U.S. forces on its soil, claiming it was just an effort to
protect citizens. "There are dangers involved, and we have to
ensure the safety of our country and the well-being of our
citizens," an unnamed “senior government official”
told the Associated Press in the first public Jordanian
confirmation of the deployment. "We are benefiting from the
experience of our allies as we prepare for the worst scenarios."

Estimates suggest 100,000 or more Syrian refugees may already be
in Jordan, and many more have fled to other neighboring
countries as the conflict intensifies. For over a year and a
half,
Islamic terrorists seeking Sharia law and opposition forces
long backed by the U.S. government have been waging war on the
despotic but secular regime of Bashar al-Assad. And as the
violence rages, more refugees are expected.

Western governments and oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes are hoping
to oust the Assad dictatorship using mostly proxies on the
ground. If all goes as planned, the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated
“Syrian National Council” — an umbrella organization with
extensive links to the Bilderberg group and the world
government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations — is
expected to take over from the current despot. If not, a
Brookings Institution report suggested it may be worthwhile for
the U.S. government to just “bleed” the Syrian government and
leave the nation in disarray.

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, however, have been
killed in the crossfire. And the conflict threatens to spark a
regional conflagration that could eventually directly involve
Western governments, the Iranian regime, the Russian government,
the communist Chinese dictatorship, and more. Despite Panetta’s
pronouncements, how U.S. troops on the border fit into the
picture remains unclear, for now at least, though observers are
deeply suspicious.

Whether President Obama would overtly intervene militarily in
the conflict remains to be seen — so far he has indicated
publicly that his administration
prefers to support rebel forces from a distance. However, as
has been the case on numerous occasions throughout U.S. history,
one minor incident could change all of that in an instant.

US Deploying Military
Personnel to Syrian-Jordanian Border
Part of long-planned attempt to spur defections, divide and
destroy Syria, as articulated in Brookings Institution's
"Assessing Options for Regime Change."

By Tony
Cartalucci

Video: Geopolitical analyst and
photojournalist
Nile Bowie brings up long-documented plans by the
West to carve out "buffer zones" within Syria to further
project power against Damascus, betraying the narrative
that recent escalations are spontaneous

....

October 11, 2012 -
While the idea of a buffer zone is meant to look like a
knee-jerk reaction to recent escalations, in reality
this has been planned since at least March 2012, where
the idea was proposed by the corporate-financier funded
Brookings Institution in their "Middle East Memo #21" "Assessing
Options for Regime Change" where it stated
specifically (emphasis added):

"An alternative is for
diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the
violence and how to gain humanitarian access,
as is being done
under Annan’s leadership.
This may lead to
the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian
corridors, which would have to be backed by
limited military power. This would, of course, fall
short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve
Asad in power. From
that starting point, however, it is possible that a
broad coalition with the appropriate international
mandate could add further coercive action to its
efforts." -page
4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings
Institution.

Image: The
Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing
Options for Regime Change (.pdf),"
makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to
protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime
change.

....

Brookings continues by
describing how Turkey's aligning of vast amounts of
weapons and troops along its border in coordination with
Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, could help effect
violent regime change in Syria:

In addition, Israel’s
intelligence services have a strong knowledge of
Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime
that could be used to subvert the regime’s power
base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could
posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in
so doing, might divert regime forces from
suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure
fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war,
particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on
its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed
a steady diet of arms and training. Such a
mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military
leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself.
Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip
the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other
forces were aligned properly. -page
6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings
Institution.

Foreign troops in Jordan,
including US troops, may be playing a role in providing
additional pressure south of Syria while Turkey attempts
to pressure Syria from the north. The idea is to stretch
out Syrian forces, relieving NATO-backed terrorists
operating within the country. Of course, while the
Western media claims these are merely troops helping
with "humanitarian" concerns, they are undoubtedly doing
all in their power to present Syria with a credible
threat to force Syria to divide its troops, while
attempting to stoke paranoia and panic in the minds of
Syrian officers and politicians the West hopes to lure
into defecting.

In response, Syria and its
allies must provide a mutually convincing deterrent
against this build-up and the threat it is meant to
generate. With the fact that the West is openly arming,
funding, and backing terrorists groups linked directly
to Al Qaeda, not only in Syria,
but in Libya, as well as their recent announcement
of the
delisting of terror group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK),
it would not be difficult for Syria's allies to build up
international support to send a monitoring group, only
upon Damascus' request, to address in reality the
humanitarian concerns on Syria's borders the West is
only feigning to address. The presence of this
monitoring group, which might include armed elements,
would raise the stakes for Western policy makers and
their proxies, and would discourage the influx of
weapons and foreign fighters that have been costing
Syrians their lives for over a year.

US policy openly states
that it would prefer "bleeding" Syria to death over the
long term, even if it could not succeed in exacting
regime change, thus betraying their narrative of
attempting to end a "humanitarian" crisis.

"The United States
might still arm the opposition even knowing they
will probably never have sufficient power, on
their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington
might choose to do so simply in the belief that at
least providing an oppressed people with some
ability to resist their oppressors is better than
doing nothing at all, even if the support provided
has little chance of turning defeat into victory.
Alternatively, the United States might calculate
that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad
regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary
weak, while avoiding the costs of direct
intervention." -pages
8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings
Institution.

Clearly, the West's
"humanitarian concerns" are a poorly dressed pretext for
the absolute destruction of Syria through the
intentional prolonging of violence and its ravaging
effects for as long as possible. Clearly those
implicated in this conspiracy demonstrably being carried
out by the US, UK, France, NATO and its Persian Gulf
allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, should play no further
role in attempting to resolve violence in Syria they
admit to starting and seeking to indefinitely
perpetuate. This role should be granted instead to
a growing, multipolar effort being led by Russia,
Iran, and China.

The failure of
international law is now on full display in Syria. With
Western nations clearly dominating the United Nation's
agenda, and the supranational institutions that surround
it, overt criminal conspiracies have been allowed to
unfold not only without consequence, but without even
simple condemnation. The US in particular, through its
policy think-tank Brookings Institution, has put to
paper designs to perpetuate a humanitarian catastrophe
indefinitely - not to protect civilian life, but simply
to achieve a self-serving geopolitical objective - "to
keep a regional adversary weak." An alternative must be
found, one based on the unwavering primacy of national
sovereignty, not international law, where
extraterritorial transgressions like those committed by
the West toward Syria can never be justified nor
tolerated.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)